Respiratory illnesses in Canadian health care workers: a pilot study of influenza vaccine and oseltamivir prophylaxis during the 2007/2008 influenza season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data regarding both rates of acute respiratory illness in health care workers and experience with long-term antiviral prophylaxis are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of oseltamivir prophylaxis versus seasonal influenza vaccine for the prevention of influenza among health care workers. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, randomized control study during the 2007/2008 influenza season in a tertiary care setting. Adult health care workers 18-69 years of age were recruited and randomly assigned in a 4:1 ratio to receive either oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®); Roche) 75 mg once daily prophylaxis or seasonal influenza (Fluviral(®)) vaccine. RESULTS: Of 56 adults enrolled, 12 received vaccine and 44 received prophylaxis. Incidence of symptomatic laboratory-confirmed influenza was similar for participants in the vaccine and prophylaxis arms (17% and 24%, respectively; P = 0·71). Participants who developed an acute respiratory illness during the study period reported working 85% of scheduled work days, and 29% stated that they worked despite feeling miserable because they were too busy to stay home. Of 42 participants who initiated oseltamivir prophylaxis, four discontinued it owing to side effects. Median duration of oseltamivir prophylaxis was 121 days, with 34 (81%) continuing ≥12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: During an extended season of suboptimal vaccine match, 22% of health care workers receiving antiviral prophylaxis or seasonal influenza vaccine developed symptomatic laboratory-confirmed influenza. Long-term antiviral prophylaxis against influenza was generally well tolerated with good compliance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".